Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

30% of Americans Get News From Facebook According To Pew Research Poll

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the don't-like-this dept.

Facebook 194

An anonymous reader writes "According to a recent Pew Research poll a third of Americans get their news while they 'like' things. 'All in all, then, it may be the very incidental nature of the site that ultimately exposes more people to news there,' Pew said. 'Indeed, the more time one spends on the site, the more likely they are to get news there.'"

cancel ×

194 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Applies to all events? (5, Interesting)

RunFatBoy.net (960072) | about a year ago | (#45255595)

Facebook makes me personally more engaged and thoughtful of all events, both news and personal.

It's amazing how I can see someone that I connected with on Facebook in real life and have a vague notion of what they are up to. It makes me feel connected. The same goes for news; my friends all read the new several times a day and therefore gives me a hand on the pulse of current events, even though that's not my intent.

Re:Applies to all events? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255621)

And so can the NSA! *rabble rabble*

Re:Applies to all events? (5, Interesting)

Garridan (597129) | about a year ago | (#45255657)

I get my news from Slashdot. My wife tells me I have a very republican-leaning family -- if I was on facebook, I'd probably be exposed to a larger breadth of opinion. Confirmation bias? I try to look elsewhere for news... but ultimately, I keep coming back to the places that present the stories that I care about.

Re:Applies to all events? (1, Offtopic)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#45255991)

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy. Yeah, liberal elitism has turned me completely away from anything "socialism". Rarely have the people in ivory towers ever figured the world as it really is, only as it should be.

Re:Applies to all events? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256117)

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy.

You're an idiot for changing views just because someone disagrees with you.

Re:Applies to all events? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#45256241)

Thanks for proving why I changed my views. People like you, who hide behind the cloak of A/C comments. I didn't say I changed my views because people call me names. I said it doesn't help your cause. Which you seem to have completely missed. And if that is the best retort the the "elite" has to offer, it isn't much of one. Thanks for proving my case for me.

Re:Applies to all events? (4, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#45256257)

"Elite Anonymous Coward". Wow - what a concept.

Re:Applies to all events? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256503)

In the defense of the other AC: what you wrote was:

I've become much more libertarian since I came to slashdot. Nothing like having people tell you you're an idiot simply because you disagree with them on policy.

You are clearly implying that a major contributing reason why you changed your political views was because people were mean to you. While the other AC should perhaps go back to Reddit where all the other pedants live, you are also not being honest.

Interestingly, I went the other way. I was a die-hard libertarian some years ago and it was the constant display of intolerance by my own friends that made me take a second look at my ideology. I started questioning the mantras they (and I) were bandying about and found them wanting so I changed. I thoroughly *hate* the "college liberal" types who act exactly the way you describe and it's tiresome to be compared to them but, at the same time, I no longer associate with the more machine-like thinking of the bootstraps-or-die crowd who seem quite content to let people die due to poor healtcare choices in the past.

To each his own.

Re: Applies to all events? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256247)

Hold strong opinions weakly. Facts are meaningless - they can be used to prove anything.

Re:Applies to all events? (5, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#45256255)

More accurately, an idiot is incapable of changing his views. Anyone with a working brain evaluates and considers news and opinions. Well presented views, news, and opinions SHOULD enable a person to change his own views. GP deserves a nod of respect, whether you agree with his opinions or not.

Re:Applies to all events? (4, Interesting)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | about a year ago | (#45256237)

Odd, I've had the complete opposite experience. I'm politically libertarian, but I loathe to ever admit it in public due to the connotation of them being stuck-up pricks that love to idealize the world in 'flawless' little politico-economic frameworks. And in my experiences, that stereotype is not entirely unfounded. When your first reaction is to pick a stance on something based solely on 'minimizing government', as opposed to starting from first principles or from inductive reasoning drawing on history, you've got a problem. You've got an ivory-toweritis problem. I'm libertarian because on average my own path of reasoning tends to draw me to free market solutions and socially-liberal fiscally conservative stances (which I'm not going to be arrogant enough to claim "how the world really is", that's elitist talk), but I never felt the same with my political 'peers'.

Re:Applies to all events? (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#45256719)

I love the arguments I get in on here where I'll re-state what a candidate for the Libertarian Party said, as if it represents the current US libertarian movement, and I'm corrected that LP is not libertarian, or something like that. Or I'll state that I'm libertarian, but I don't vote libertarian because I don't agree with the LP, and people tell me if I don't agree with the LP, then I can't be a libertarian.

The funny thing is the large number of responses to the same comment/person that are contradictory. The talk about "groupthink" is funny when the group is neither aligned, nor "thinking".

Re:Applies to all events? (4, Insightful)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year ago | (#45255875)

The problem is the echo chaimber it creates. If you only get news your friends share, where do you get alternative viewpoints?

Re:Applies to all events? (2, Interesting)

NixieBunny (859050) | about a year ago | (#45256279)

Today's Facebook echo chamber was echoing a lot of Lou Reed songs. That was all the news that mattered today.

Re:Applies to all events? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256409)

In an echo chamber, its the Pew Pew Pew Research Poll.

Re:Applies to all events? (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year ago | (#45256477)

But I want to get my news from my Facebook friend who is 56 years old and thinks we are inching each day toward an inevitable race war and quotes bible scripture three times a day!

Re:Applies to all events? (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#45256579)

The problem is the echo chaimber it creates. If you only get news your friends share, where do you get alternative viewpoints?

This begs the question of why someone would want to get alternative viewpoints. Most people don't want to be regularly exposed to ideas, beliefs, culture, etc., that conflicts with their own. It creates anxiety, anger, and/or dissociation. The begged question, by the way, is also a rhetorical question. But it doesn't change human nature, and we are talking about Facebook here.

The "social network" is not simply a conduit for human virtues -- it is equally a conduit for human failures. And let's be honest with ourselves -- critical thinking is hard work. Even (perhaps especially) amongst the highly literate and/or intelligent, who are practiced at overcoming their own biases to keep an open mind, must still be deliberate and cautious.

On that note, for those who so desire to find alternative viewpoints social networks provide plenty of opportunity. Many of my friends and I debate on Facebook, each playing devil's advocate to the other in a semi-public venue. I have also found, painfully, that if one wishes to test how tolerant their friends truly are... post something unpopular and defend it. The results are both illuminating, and occasionally warrant making popcorn to witness the explosively violent ways in which people react to opposing views.

Re:Applies to all events? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256697)

This begs the question

No, it doesn't. It raises the question. "Begging the question" is something else entirely.

Re:Applies to all events? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#45256733)

People don't want alternative viewpoints.

Re:Applies to all events? (2)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | about a year ago | (#45255929)

News in general should be about the condition and potential effects of a given event on society. You're blathering on about emotions, feelings, and the individual; the worship of selfishness. It is still a form of selfishness to identify with another selfish soul devoid of facts and full context -- it is the confirmation to one's own selfishness to indulge and support selfishness in others.

Academia often states that Wikipedia for example is a poor source, not because by definition it is a tertiary / secondary source, but because the signal to noise ratio is poor and they fear students lack the ability to differentiate (the SNR of Wikipedia is generally good overall). The SNR for news on Facebook is easily orders of magnitude worse. Even Jersey Shore and similar reality TV trash are more useful to society. Too much of the news which propagates on Facebook is tabloid confessionals and one-sided falsehoods, much of it fiction made up from vague opinionated interpretations of actual events. Those who engage in it's spread should be burned as heretics to the betterment of society, knowledge, and wisdom. It's sickening and disgusting.

The society of, "how I feel is paramount" is harmful to everyone. I am a person of religious conviction, but I would condemn the proselytizer as a sinner just as an emotional human I condemn the person for whom the societal discussion is steered by emotion, opinion, and falsehood instead of core truth.

Re:Applies to all events? (2)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | about a year ago | (#45255943)

TL:DR version: You're talking about gossip, not news.

Re:Applies to all events? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#45256019)

News isn't what is reported, that is MSM. What is news is what nobody else has heard because they are too busy watching MSNBC and FOX. I've found that what shapes peoples opinions are the "news" they follow, the stuff that isn't really on anyone else's radar. Shallow people have no news other than what MSM tells them. They pick sides MSNBC / FOX and that is all they know.

Re:Applies to all events? (2)

rockout (1039072) | about a year ago | (#45256099)

MSNBC and Fox get what, a few million viewers, max, per day? A tiny fraction of the population of the US.

Your false dichotomy is a direct result of your desire to feel like you know something that everyone else doesn't, or at least, most other people, all of whom you regard as being not as smart as yourself. It's a ridiculous point of view bred by your narcissism.

Lemme guess, you can also tell us about the real story behind 9/11, that only you and a few other really smart people know about. "Really smart" in this case meaning you read websites that aren't "on anyone else's radar."

Re:Applies to all events? (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#45256251)

I'm not a conspiracy advocate. I think 19 guys from mostly Saudi Arabia flew airplanes into buildings. What I find amazing are the people who think that GWB orchestrated it, while simultaneously believing he is the stupidest president ever; one the one hand he is pure evil genius and on the other hand a monkey is smarter than he is. Hilarious!

Re:Applies to all events? (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year ago | (#45256707)

I'm not sure what reading the news on Facebook is like (having no account there), but besides a simple news app (headlines + short summary) I get my news mostly from two (Dutch) blogs, one of them a left-leaning site that proclaims to be somewhat civilized, the other is a rather irreverent and somewhat puerile right-leaning blog (its tag line proudly states: "tendentious, unfounded and needlessly grievous"). Both cover the news of the day fairly well.

These being internet blogs, you can guess at the sort of comments that grace the news articles on their sites. They range from a lot of noise and insults to sometimes fairly intelligent discussion, but the real gems are often found in links to background material that people post. To my surprise, I gain a lot more insight into the background of issues and the merits of other points of view from these comments and links, than I do from reading the paper on Saturday.

Re:Applies to all events? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about a year ago | (#45255955)

'feel connected' and 'are connected' are not the same thing.

the other 40% (5, Funny)

deodiaus2 (980169) | about a year ago | (#45255597)

the other 40% get it from Fox News. The rest don't care.

Re:the other 40% (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45255651)

That doesn't speak well of you then. Which one are you?

Re:the other 40% (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about a year ago | (#45256027)

He's the guy who gets his news from John Stewart and Colbert :-D

Re:the other 40% (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256127)

John Stewart

Who's that? Ah, maybe you mean Jon....

Re:the other 40% (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256317)

Does Fox have a Facebook page? Then I would be fully informed.

Re:the other 40% (1)

GNious (953874) | about a year ago | (#45256457)

Need to get a balanced news-diet:
* John Stewart
* Steven Colbert
* Bill Maher
* Wall Street Journal

Re:the other 40% (0)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#45255705)

More accurately in this case 47% of Facebook users who are willing to do surveys on Facebook get their 'internet' news from Facebook shared likes ie they must already be demographically be aligned with the people sharing news with them. Hmm, is Facebook trying to hint that paid for news likes can tilt their audience into the closed loop world of corporate advertising as news? Is Facebook trying to claim they are the Shepard and they have a flock ready to fleece?

Re:the other 40% (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year ago | (#45255779)

More accurately in this case 47% of Facebook users who are willing to do surveys on Facebook get their 'internet' news from Facebook shared likes

No. This survey was not conducted by Facebook, or on Facebook. It was conducted by the Pew Research Center, a reputable polling organization. Protip: If you don't have time before posting to read the article, or the summary, you should still at least read the headline.

Re:the other 40% (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year ago | (#45256365)

I did, did you not check where they did their research and how they conducted it. Although not complete in details indications where that Pew Research Centre did it on Face book. They also did not state why the research was conducted or who paid for it.

Re:the other 40% (0)

zerro (1820876) | about a year ago | (#45255865)

lolz you beat me to it!
I was going to say
"the other 30% get it from Fox News. Source: Fox News"

Re:the other 40% (1)

Phrogz (43803) | about a year ago | (#45256261)

And some of us are right-minded individuals who get our news from The Daily Show.

Explains a lot (3, Insightful)

justcauseisjustthat (1150803) | about a year ago | (#45255611)

So many people, so misinformed.

Re:Explains a lot (1, Informative)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45255819)

Including you, apparently. If you had bothered to read the links you would have seen this was a good thing. The report shows that very few people get their news only from Facebook and that seeing news incidentally leads to more engagement from the people who are least likely to seek out news. The fact that people are sharing and discussing news on Facebook leads to an overall higher consumption of news.

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255839)

Disclaimer: I'm yet to read the links. But you only have to visit the NineMSN homepage here in Australia to see what most people think counts as news.

Sorry but if Facebook makes me more engaged with the Karcrashingtons, I'm not interested and I _don't_ think that's a good thing.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45255977)

Maybe you should read it first then. While entertainment is the most popular topic, yes, most people view a variety of topics and two thirds view local news.

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256069)

Lol OK I've since read it and I still disagree. Not least because the survey question was "have you EVER seen news on Facebook".

'News' on facebook falls into two categories: 'News' that's been shared by my friends (dubious sources) and 'News' that's been shoved down my throat due to some organisation/group I liked in a drunken fury at some point in the past (dubious motives). Even those groups that purport to bring you some form of unbiased information were set up by someone with an axe to grind about SOMETHING.

Tell me a source of information on Facebook that's impartial and I might agree it's a good thing.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45256203)

Not least because the survey question was "have you EVER seen news on Facebook".

There was not "a" survey question. The survey results/analysis are ten pages. I'm thinking you read the first page and thought that was it.

Tell me a source of information on Facebook that's impartial

Tell me a source of information that's impartial.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45256119)

maybe if you have only friends who post shit about karcrashingtons. in reality some post warez news, some post tech news, some post techfanboinews.. some post stories about gaza, some post stories about rockets shot from gaza.. some just post crazy ufo conspiracy shit.

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255881)

A GOOD thing? So called "news" links on Facebook are.....

I cant go on, this is too terribly obvious to point out the problems with "news" on Facebook

Re:Explains a lot (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about a year ago | (#45255907)

Where the fuck does it say it's a good thing? It says that people who don't read the news think it is better. i.e. The misinformed think it is a better place to get news or it's the only place they get their news. Which is fucking atrocious and horrible. And most of the news they do get is entertainment related. The rest is basically people's own opinions on what is going on from unreliable sources. Of people who actually read the news elsewhere less than 40% think it is a good place to get your news from. You probably think the Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Bill Maher are hard core journalists too. I'll give you that they are up front about what they do, more so than Fox news magazine retards, but please don't ever try to tell me that some social media site is a good place to get your news, or even a good thing that people supposedly get their news there.

Re:Explains a lot (1)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45255965)

Hypocrite types rant about ignorance that demonstrates he didn't read what he's criticizing. Film at 11.

Re:Explains a lot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255895)

At least they could provide a direct link to Facebook [nsa.gov]

The news you want (3, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year ago | (#45255615)

The great part about getting information from a social network is that you can precisely fine-tune what information you allow to seep into your personal bubble.

Re:The news you want (4, Insightful)

ScottCooperDotNet (929575) | about a year ago | (#45255873)

The great part about getting information from a social network is that you can precisely fine-tune what information you allow to seep into your personal bubble.

The downside is the self-selection bias of online news makes for an echo chamber of one's existing beliefs, ensuring no facts that run counter to one's existing thoughts are presented. We're all better informed of the opinions we agree with, but as ignorant as ever of those holding opposing views.

Re: The news you want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256273)

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding yourself in the ranks of the insane - Marcus Aurelius

Re:The news you want (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45256509)

Hmm. Well, I guess that's why I don't use Facebook. All my friends have different viewpoints on many subjects. Some align and have caveats, others ascribe different reasons. We all care about different things. For instance, as a cyberneticist I'm keenly aware of the degree of suffering my food endures. Unlike my idealist vegan friend who's largely clueless about being an evolved product of our environments, neuronal density of livestock, and the fuzzy complexity threshold of sentience, I simply appreciate my meals more, and try not to be wasteful -- C'est la vie.

I've got religious friends and have studied most major religions somewhat deeply, but I'm an atheist. Along with my philosopher friend we debate philosophy, esp. epistemology (which I have a firm grasp on thanks to information theory) -- This sets me at odds with the others since I can quantify what's knowable within relative degrees of certainty, and even run cybernetic simulations that demonstrate many philosophical and religious concepts, like where free will comes from.

Not every conversation is a debate, we accept each other's viewpoints instead of devolving into flame wars. You see, we try not to make ourselves asses since we're face to face, not on Facebook...

I'm hesitant to label this an "IRL" vs "Online" phenomenon since my experience with offline friends mirrors my IRC friends (think, twitter, but with separate feed-views [rooms], direct file transfers, and no 140 char limitation). Perhaps consider the null hypothesis? Perhaps you just suck at friending?

Re:The news you want (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#45255915)

...which apparently includes a rehash of all the email forwards since 1992... But other than that, it's great.

Re:The news you want (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#45255987)

Good journalism is about to defeat your personal bubble, and let enter information you would not have thought as relevant.

Getting "the news you want" means you just reinforce each days your beliefs and biases.

Editors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255653)

It would be quite helpful if you would explain briefly sometimes what these sites are. Maybe even a link, I had to go to wikipedia to find out what a "facebook" was, now I will make everyone suffer and search for it also.
Briefly, it used to be a popular "social" type website, like myspace- but less significant.

Re:Editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255719)

Hipster humor. Wow.

Re:Editors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255753)

Hipster humor. Wow.

Is that like a "hippy"?

summary says 'ever' (5, Informative)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#45255655)

As in ""Overall, about half of adult Facebook users, or 47 percent, 'ever' get news there," Pew said in its report. "That amounts to 30 percent of the population."

So if you see a news story on Facebook, once in a while, i.e. often enough to remember that you did it, ever, you're in the 30%. It's a deceptive summary.

The referenced article goes on to say, "Just 4 percent said Facebook is the most important way they get news"

Carry on with your silliness.

Re:summary says 'ever' (2)

Kohath (38547) | about a year ago | (#45255725)

Misinformation? In a news post? No way!

Re:summary says 'ever' (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#45255787)

As in ""Overall, about half of adult Facebook users, or 47 percent, 'ever' get news there,"

What does this mean? 53% of Facebook users never read their wall? Or they do but none of their friends post news stories? They have very poor memories? The question confused them?

Facebook won't let others access information like which news stories are the most posted, but if they did it would actually make a decent news aggregator, without implicit editorial bias. One of my favorite news feeds used to be "Yahoo Most Emailed" - interesting stuff that was never on the front page of news site with editorial story selection.

I'd love to join that kind of data with my own selection of what constitutes a credible source (boy, do my friends love to post nonsense from naturalnews...).

Re:summary says 'ever' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256043)

Bah! You ruined the smufest. 30% of us get all of our news from Slashdot, and the rest of us get 30% of our news from Slashdot. So as you can see, we have a vested interest in feeling superior to Facebook.

Re:summary says 'ever' (1)

tompaulco (629533) | about a year ago | (#45256747)

Sounds like they measured it like the Nielsen ratings. There are only a small percentage of Nielsen households, but they treat the numbers as Holy and a direct indication of what other people are watching. In truth, there are certain factors that may make someone more likely to want to be a Nielsen family. For example, they watch a lot of TV. Nielsen then assumes everyone watches the same amount of TV as someone who wanted a Nielsen box. I would also surmise that people who want a Nielsen box are more likely than the general population to like lowbrow humor, reality shows, awards shows, and sports.
I guess the statistics bear out if they were trying to get the opinion about what people who like to watch TV like to watch. However, they are making claims to advertisers about how many eyeballs were on their ads, and I think that that is a falsehood unattainable from the Nielsen statistics.

Summary is misleading (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255659)

a third of Americans get their news while they 'like' things.

Hell, I get news while I pump gas at service stations where the pumps are equipped with 9" TV screens. I wouldn't say that's where I "get my news", but I won't deny I've caught news there a few times.

US news media are a joke (4, Informative)

Kohath (38547) | about a year ago | (#45255665)

Why not get your news from Facebook? Almost every source of news in the US spins and/or censors coverage for someone's political gain. If you're going to hear lies about current events, you might as well hear them from your friends.

Re:US news media are a joke (3, Insightful)

utkonos (2104836) | about a year ago | (#45255683)

But news from facebook is not first person. It's just your friends posting links to those same news sources that you're complaining about.

Re:US news media are a joke (2)

msobkow (48369) | about a year ago | (#45255885)

I read news feeds from around the world and post comments to crackbook about them with links to the articles.

The US news is the *last* thing I read, because it is the *least* informative and the *most biased.*

For example: Not one word about the anti-NSA protests in US media. Still. Yet there were articles about the protests from Al Jazeera, Russia Times, and France 24.

I pity Americans. You're led around like sheep and you're too naval-gazing to realize how misinformed you are.

Re:US news media are a joke (1)

utkonos (2104836) | about a year ago | (#45256025)

I think you're referring to Russia Today, not Russia Times, aka RT. They are a state-owned news service controlled by Rospechat. They are not even remotely independent. If you're looking for news from a Russian news source, I would recommend Novaya Gazeta. They are staff-owned (a rarity in the Russian Federation).

Re:US news media are a joke (5, Informative)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | about a year ago | (#45256097)

For example: Not one word about the anti-NSA protests in US media. Still.

Your news gathering skills are....poor to say the least.

USA Today: Anti-NSA rally attracts thousands to march in Washington http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/26/nsa-dc-rally/3241417/ [usatoday.com]

Huffington Post: NSA 'Stop Watching Us' Protest Draws Thousands In Washington http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/nsa-stop-watching-us_n_4166640.html [huffingtonpost.com]

US News and Word Report: Edward Snowden Endorses D.C. Protest Against NSA in Rare Public Statement http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/24/edward-snowden-endorses-dc-protest-against-nsa-in-rare-public-statement [usnews.com]

Christian Science Monitor: NSA Washington: March against surveillance and a call from Edward Snowden http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/1026/NSA-Washington-March-against-surveillance-and-a-call-from-Edward-Snowden-photos [csmonitor.com]

CNN: Anti-NSA rally targets Washington http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/26/anti-nsa-rally-targets-washington/ [cnn.com]

Fox News: Hundreds rally in DC to protest NSA http://video.foxnews.com/v/2772548586001/hundreds-rally-in-dc-to-protest-nsa/ [foxnews.com]

NBC News: Hundreds march at anti-NSA rally in DC http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/53383405 [nbcnews.com]

CBS News: Protesters March For Investigation Into Mass NSA Spying http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2013/10/26/protesters-march-for-investigation-into-mass-nsa-spying/ [cbslocal.com]

ABC News: NSA Spying Threatens to Hamper US Foreign Policy http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/nsa-spying-threatens-hamper-us-foreign-policy-20689770 [go.com]

Washington Post: Techies concerned over NSA surveillance will march in D.C., proclaiming ‘Stop Watching Us’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/techies-concerned-over-nsa-surveillance-will-march-in-dc-proclaiming-stop-watching-us/2013/10/25/5bedb546-3da7-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

This is where I get tired of pasting, but I assure you the list goes on and on.

Re:US news media are a joke (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#45255923)

...when they're not posting links to parody sites believing they're true...

Re:US news media are a joke (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255699)

Not just political gain. Remember how ABC/CBS/NBC forgot to cover SOPA until it was obvious they weren't covering it? They wanted that law.

Re:US news media are a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255793)

If you're going to hear lies about current events, you might as well hear them from your friends.

And also have an opportunity to prove to your friends why the lies are lies. Careful how you do it. Focus on winning the person over not winning the argument. There's a difference :).

Re:US news media are a joke (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255801)

Almost every source of news in the US spins and/or censors coverage for someone's political gain.

That's because on the type of programs you like to listen to, you've heard countless number of times the all media sources in the US fall into one of two categories.

There are the conservative sources, like Fox News, WSJ, Drudge Report, and a few city papers (NY Post, Washington Times, Baltimore Sun).

Then there is "MSM", which means all other media sources, which are one great big club of liberals who get together and discuss how to promote the Big Government agenda and cover for Obama's mistakes.

If you think about it, the logistics of how the members of MSM coordinate with one another on story after story is extremely impressive!

Re:US news media are a joke (0)

Kohath (38547) | about a year ago | (#45255859)

There are the conservative sources, like Fox News, WSJ, Drudge Report, and a few city papers (NY Post, Washington Times, Baltimore Sun).

a.k.a. Racists.

Then there is "MSM", which means all other media sources, which are one great big club of liberals who get together and discuss how to promote the Big Government agenda and cover for Obama's mistakes.

a.k.a. The good guys. They want to feed apples and carrots to the President's unicorn. He's so smart and capable! None of the bad things that happen are ever his fault, so it would be wrong to mislead the public by reporting on them.

Re:US news media are a joke (1)

SerenelyHotPest (2970223) | about a year ago | (#45255905)

I think the title could be broadened to say, "News Media Are--And Always Have Been--A Joke".

The news media have always existed to serve political ends either overtly or covertly. The slack of the American mainstream news has largely been picked up by independent news outlets, which have their own political agendas. If I were to guess from the title of your post, you get a lot of your news through BBC/Al Jazeera/RT. Are you really convinced any of those organizations is impartial? I grant their coverage of certain kinds of news you care about may be more objective than their mainstream American counterparts, but if your current events knowledge comes solely from them and Slashdot, I'd put forward that your impressions of some things are very one-sided.

I'm not saying you're wrong to look for non-American coverage of news--far from it. I've observed that my own perceptions of world events become problematic when I confine myself to learning about the world through one channel of information. This would certainly explain the state of American politics.

Re:US news media are a joke (1)

Kohath (38547) | about a year ago | (#45255925)

They are worse now than any time in the last 30 years.

Gossip (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255695)

All this says is that 30% of Americans value gossip more than news. This is not news to anyone or stuff that matters.

That makes lots of sense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255721)

When you consider how many people voted for our commander-n-chump - twice! Stupid is what stupid does...

Fast News Facebook Friends (2)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | about a year ago | (#45255741)

I think everyone has a friend on FB who posts news items really fast. As soon as they happen. It is almost like some people feel compelled to be the first to ancounce news on Facebook. I think those few people may be responsible for most others getting their news on FB as well.

It's not all that different from Slashdot ... (4, Insightful)

MacTO (1161105) | about a year ago | (#45255761)

My (admittedly limited) experience on Facebook suggest that people who are engaged with current events will link to stories, and others will comment on them or like them. That doesn't seem to be all that different from what happens on Slashdot or forums. The difference is in the depth of that layman commentary and how well you know the people involved in the discussion.

So it's not that Facebook is the source of the news. I would be horrified if that was the case. Facebook is simply being used to connect people to the news, and those links may be to more reputable sources. There is reason to be concerned about the bias that a person finds within their own social circles, but you get a lot of bias from sites like Slashdot and forums anyhow.

Re:It's not all that different from Slashdot ... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#45255947)

I think the real difference is that people can post pretty much anything to their Facebook news stream, including things that are blatantly, provably false. (Apparently it's part of the TOS for facebook users to post at least one tired old hoax a day or have your account suspended. Or be attacked by butt spiders. Or something.) At least what gets posted to Slashdot as news stories goes through some cursory editorial review, and comments that can't be backed up get called bullshit by other users. If we must draw parallels, I'd call Facebook "slashdot for idiots".

Re:It's not all that different from Slashdot ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256159)

At least what gets posted to Slashdot as news stories goes through some cursory editorial review

You must be new here.

Re:It's not all that different from Slashdot ... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#45256177)

At least what gets posted to Slashdot as news stories goes through some cursory editorial review

You must be new here.

Point conceded. But it's all relative, right? I haven't yet seen the "giant radioactive fukushima squid" story wash up on Slashdot yet.

Yeah... So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45255771)

People are stupid. The majority of americans also believe some crazy religious shit too.

You can't fix stupid.

You can however exploit it. And thats why facebook is where they get their news.

Re:Yeah... So... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a year ago | (#45255973)

You can't fix stupid.

You can fix stupid. Generally it takes time and understand and you looking in the mirror often. Often enough, the problem with stupid starts within.

The worst part: Facebook knows WHICH 30% (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#45255775)

And they're selling the list to the highest bidder.

Not from Facebook (2)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about a year ago | (#45255817)

The pollsters missed it by the phrasing of their question. People aren't getting their news from Facebook. They're getting news from their friends and people they're following, who happen to be posting links to that news to Facebook. The difference is subtle but important. If someone goes "Oh, all we need to do is get our stories to appear on Facebook.", they're going to have their whole push fall on it's face because nobody's reading their articles. They'd need to get their articles in front of the people who lots of other people follow first, and make those articles interesting enough that those people post links to them for their followers to see. That's more complicated than just getting your story carried by a half-dozen major outlets.

Re:Not from Facebook (1)

SerenelyHotPest (2970223) | about a year ago | (#45255917)

People aren't getting their news from Facebook yet, but don't worry; in two decades, all news will originate in, propagate throughout, and develop solely on Facebook. Facebook will be the new geopolitical sphere. For all intents and purposes, that "real world" thing won't exist anymore.

Re:Not from Facebook (3, Insightful)

roc97007 (608802) | about a year ago | (#45255963)

That the news you see on your facebook feed has to have been deemed important by one of your friends (or one of their friends) is a very good point. Where this breaks down is that your friends (or at least, *my* friends) will believe anything. Including that microwaved water will kill plants and that keying in your PIN backwards will call the police. Taken holistically, it creates a very bizarre picture of the world.

agree but more (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year ago | (#45256259)

you're right on here:

The pollsters missed it by the phrasing of their question. People aren't getting their news from Facebook. They're getting news from their friends and people they're following

but you missed directly from the News Company (CBS, MSNBC, NYTImes, etc)

the News orgs themselves post links to their stories...no reposting by individual 'friends' needed

I say this b/c a friend of mine uses facebook.com as essentailly a news aggregator and event calendar for rock shows and new films...his identity is made up and none of his friends are real 'friends'...he's kind of a privacy obsessive (nothing wrong with that) so he just wants to log on quick, check his feed and get what info he wants and be done

Other groups that give tailored content directly: sports teams, local news papers, local TV, individual reporters (esp ppl like Buzzfeed reporters), newsmakers (via f/b account reposting from twitter)

So you're right to criticize I just wanted to add that the organizations themselves also play a major role in that content...not just stuff from personal friends

There is more news than can ever be parsed (1)

physicsphairy (720718) | about a year ago | (#45255937)

There are more news stories printed each day than any individual person could ever reasonably be aware of. Some sort of filter is needed, and, honestly, 'things my friends consider important', i.e., FB links, is a fairly good way to discriminate. If news is interesting/significant to people you share commonality with, it's likely to be interesting/significant to you. (Hence, Slashdot, where all of us nerds aggregate around 'News for nerds'.)

I find most aggregation services fairly bad at this. I actually think twitter is one of the best ways to keep up with politics. By adding people who are actively involved in the news cycle I get to see the actual discussion behind the stories. I understand what aspects of the story are considered most significant, how passionate people feel about it, how people on the right and left are interpreting it. The human reactions are often more important to knowing how the stories relate to practical politics (e.g., is it something the president is going to have to reverse coarse on, apologize for, or will it simply be forgotten by the next morning with the status quo maintained).

Besides that I use Slashdot, some science magazines, and one or two blogs to keep up on what is happening in the world.

In other news.. (1)

OhANameWhatName (2688401) | about a year ago | (#45256003)

86% of statistical analysis companies get their results via electronic survey. The other 14% make them up.

This is awesome news! Hold on a sec... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256009)

... I gotta go post a link to this article on Facebook.

and the other 70%... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256017)

...from The Daily Show.

Political Agenda (1)

HJED (1304957) | about a year ago | (#45256185)

I get some news from Facebook and I also post some (usually political) news on Facebook. Often Facebook provides you with news you wouldn't have otherwise read (not big enough to be on a major news site, unpopular, etc). You also have the advantage that you know your friends political views, which makes it much easier to tell if they are spinning something.

Pew Research... (2)

BlogTheHaggis (1361307) | about a year ago | (#45256189)

Bwahahahahahaha...

Pew Public Relations & Human Affect Control (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year ago | (#45256243)

I totally agree...Pew and virtually all mainstream 'polling' companies are just awful

IMHO the entire way people are polled about things like what they watch (Nielsen ratings), their political views (take your pick...), and their attitudes on technology (Pew in TFA)...hell, even SoundScan, which reports music industry sales figures, is gamed out by the industry & is not representative at all of what music people obtain and listen to...

Go down the line...they all use 1950s methodology juiced up...sort of exactly like 'Master Command' in Tron....methodology that is **easily gamed out** by modern techniques

That's my main point...all these ratings systems are done by private companies using obsolete science...it remained obsolete b/c they had no incentive to improve...b/c their profit model was not based on receiving pay for scientific research (maybe long ago it was?)

They are PR companies...their work is to make PR and Propaganda look like plausible consumer/voter research...that's what ppl get with their money...not science

Ewwww! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45256213)

Facebook!

from traditional news in the f/b feed (1)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year ago | (#45256219)

facebook.com is does not employ reporters...they don't have a DC bureau...facebook.com does not report news

the news organizations (NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, NYTimes, WSJ, etc etc)...**they** provide the news content that is viewed in the news feed

facebook, at best, can be seen as an aggregator of news content

NYTimes, CBS, your local paper...**they** report the news

facebook's news feed is an aggregator

ugh...IMHO this is just pointless to research this aspect from this perspective...a better research topic which would yield more useful data and results would be to study who closes their facebook accounts and why and if they suppliment it with other networks...that kind of thing would be value-added

misinformation (0)

sumitjadhav137 (3012081) | about a year ago | (#45256429)

Thats why people are misinformed.

cybercom trolls (1)

JACKSONJIVE (3411749) | about a year ago | (#45256671)

that explains why the u.s govt has so many shills on fb posting news articles
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?